The Tesla Motors Model S

Mr. Elon Musk has had a good year. Space X succeeded. Now it looks like Tesla Motors will be succeeding. He came very close to losing his entire fortune having done both companies simultaneously, and on top of that Solarcity.

Features:

- 160 mile range- Using a 240 volt line, 60 miles can be recharged in an hour- 0-60 in under 6 seconds- 50k price which includes a home charger. very competitive IMO- optional 300 mile battery pack- damn good looking car too. - batteries are stored on the bottom of the car, thus allowing for more stability than gas designs- No internal combustion engine whatsoever (unlike the volt or the prius) means much simpler mechanical design- being electric, acceleration is immediate. - 17 inch touchscreen controls the car- Musk hopes to intro a 30k car within 5 years

So a few things I'm wondering about

-Apparently they used laptop batteries for this thing. Can lithium ion handle the demands of a car? - Musk at one point matriculated at Stanford in hopes of developing an ultra-capacitor for use in an electric car. Technology isn't there, but he has stated that it is the eventual goal. - What are the dangers of a crash, when lithium ion batteries, which have a reputation for catching fire and exploding, are involved?

I don't see any reason why Li+ batteries wouldn't be able to handle it. An electrical load is an electrical load. The reason that the Li batteries were overheating was because, ultimately, they were designed to allow more current to be drawn than was safe. That's more of an individual battery design problem, not a fundamental problem with the technology.

Li batteries recharge faster than Lead-Acid, they're more compact energy density allows for a better arrangement in the car. And from the sound of it, they're distributed intelligently around the chassis - not like other electric vehicles that place them in the gas-tank area and along the drivetrain, since they are essentially just retrofitted gas vehicles.

50K is a start. From the sound of it, I may be able to afford the 30K model if it comes out in 5 years!

-Apparently they used laptop batteries for this thing. Can lithium ion handle the demands of a car

Easily. See the Roadster for proof.

Quote:

- Musk at one point matriculated at Stanford in hopes of developing an ultra-capacitor for use in an electric car. Technology isn't there, but he has stated that it is the eventual goal.

The energy density of even "ultracapacitors" is two orders of magnitude lower than Li+ batteries.

Quote:

- What are the dangers of a crash, when lithium ion batteries, which have a reputation for catching fire and exploding, are involved?

Li+ batteries don't store as much energy as ~50 litres of gasoline does and they don't ignite as easily. Furthermore, you don't need to place all your explosive flammables in the same area of the vehicle as you have to with a liquid fuel tank.It sometimes astounds me that we're comfortable with barely trained idiots walloping around at 70 MPH in a ton and half of metal with fifty litres of explosives in the back.

The range and price are still very significant negatives, however. An average petrol or diesel car has around 250-300 miles available on a full tank, and refuelling stations are ubiquitous. Even if they were ubiquitous, having to wait an hour to get another 60 miles out of your car is unacceptable. These will be relegated to the wealthy soccer-mom crowd, really, since there will very likely never be any kind of used market with significantly reduced prices. Relatively few people have £35K to drop on a car, really.

What I like is that unlike the roadster, the body design is done entirely in-house. and it's all made in high-cost California of all places. During the downturn they actually closed a satellite Detroit branch. I would have thought it would be the other way around due to Cali's high costs, but it appears that there is a good reason why Mr. Musk stays in Cali.

The range and price are still very significant negatives, however. An average petrol or diesel car has around 250-300 miles available on a full tank, and refuelling stations are ubiquitous. Even if they were ubiquitous, having to wait an hour to get another 60 miles out of your car is unacceptable. These will be relegated to the wealthy soccer-mom crowd, really, since there will very likely never be any kind of used market with significantly reduced prices. Relatively few people have £35K to drop on a car, really.

That's where ultracapacitors come in. They would solve the recharge time problem.

This is obviously not a mass market car, but is a competitor to like BMW, Lexus, Cadillac, Lincoln, and Mercedes Benz.

For a 300-mile battery (officially rated at 265 by the EPA), you can supposedly re-charge more or less completely in an hour. If Tesla builds all these stations, I think that they will have taken a big stride to solving the range issue.

For a 300-mile battery (officially rated at 265 by the EPA), you can supposedly re-charge more or less completely in an hour. If Tesla builds all these stations, I think that they will have taken a big stride to solving the range issue.

Unless they're going to put one every 80 (to at most, 100) miles along every major road in the country, I don't see this making any real difference.

For a 300-mile battery (officially rated at 265 by the EPA), you can supposedly re-charge more or less completely in an hour. If Tesla builds all these stations, I think that they will have taken a big stride to solving the range issue.

Unless they're going to put one every 80 (to at most, 100) miles along every major road in the country, I don't see this making any real difference.

I believe that that is the density of stations they're talking about. Tesla probably can't afford it, but all the electric manufacturers (now including Toyota) might be able to. To do this, there needs to be an industry standard for charging, which there isn't yet.

Unless they're going to put one every 80 (to at most, 100) miles along every major road in the country, I don't see this making any real difference.

That's not how the real world works.

There's this prevailing attitude towards electric cars that there's some sort of onus on them to do everything, everywhere that gas cars do, and I don't see where that comes from.

Any place with the size and diversity of the US is going to have a variety of uses. Someone in California that likes the car and anyway wants the HOV lane sticker very likely does not care that they won't be able to charge it in Central Bumblefuck, North Dakota.

That is a real difference, because that's more than could be said a few years ago. Clearly the technology and infrastructure needs to continue to improve to appeal to more people, but it's not a matter of Bumblefuck or nothing.

There's this prevailing attitude towards electric cars that there's some sort of onus on them to do everything, everywhere that gas cars do, and I don't see where that comes from.

They're frequently touted as "magic bullets" that will save the world and free us from the tyranny of fossil fuels.

They're also (at present) obscenely expensive. Which means at a minimum, they've got to be at least as functional/practical (good) as anything else if they want to gain any traction beyond the rather limited "toy" segment.

A $100k car that can't stray more than 300 miles from home without 7 or 8 hours of recharging isn't approaching "practical". It's better than it was 5 years ago, but it's still not even close to "there".

Tesla's stuff, while neat, isn't much more than an expensive fashion accessory right now. And while it looks promising, until there's sufficient infrastructure across the country to support it, that's all it (and other electrics) will be.

Tesla has not specified how much the Model S' battery pack weighs, but it looked bigger than that in the Roadster, which comes in at close to 1,000 pounds. To our quick eyeballing of the Model S battery pack size, we're guessing at 7 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 6 inches thick.

The battery pack in the tesla is about twice as big as a fuel tank of a corolla. That means less crumple space. Also, toyota obviously has many decades of experience in keeping the fuel tank safe from impact, while the tesla is new.

re: ultracapacitors. even using a 240 volt line they should charge faster than a li-ion battery since they are not chemical. Energy density as of now is like 1/15th that of li-ion, but they might be used as a good "buffer" IMO, like the cache memory of a computer CPU.

re: ultracapacitors. even using a 240 volt line they should charge faster than a li-ion battery since they are not chemical. Energy density as of now is like 1/15th that of li-ion, but they might be used as a good "buffer" IMO, like the cache memory of a computer CPU.

Charging faster means you need more current (or power).

This is a problem. Either because of high voltage use or because of the size of the charging cables.

If they can get those lithium-air batteries (mentioned on the front page) working economically they would seem perfect for the next generation of these.

That aside, I've wanted an S since the first time I heard about them. I'd really really love to see one in person (I've seen two Roadsters, one stationary in Daytona FL and one passing me on the highway here); the site says they seat 6, which seems incredible for a sedan.

Tesla has not specified how much the Model S' battery pack weighs, but it looked bigger than that in the Roadster, which comes in at close to 1,000 pounds. To our quick eyeballing of the Model S battery pack size, we're guessing at 7 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 6 inches thick.

The battery pack in the tesla is about twice as big as a fuel tank of a corolla. That means less crumple space. Also, toyota obviously has many decades of experience in keeping the fuel tank safe from impact, while the tesla is new.

The battery pack in the S in under the car. I don't see that it affects the safety directly. Gas tanks are mostly in the rear, where they can be damaged in rear-end collisions. I think there's no comparison between the safety of a fixed source that could under some circumstances ignite and a highly flammable liquid that goes everywhere and ignites explosively.

50 grand for a civic that you can drive for about an hour or so before you need to turn around or risk getting stranded. Or you could by a VERY nicely equipped BMW 3 series and walk out of the dealership with a couple grand in your pocket.

A $100k car that can't stray more than 300 miles from home without 7 or 8 hours of recharging isn't approaching "practical".

This is where I think you've missed the point.

You don't get to come down from the mountain with a tablet that lists The Minimum Requirements For Practical Cars. It's completely dependent on the priorities of the person buying it.

If, say, someone wants a Tesla because it'll cut their commute time in half, that's a thoroughly pragmatic benefit, it's completely practical. A person doing that has no obligation to burden themselves with spurious requirements created by people with different needs than themselves.

People are prepared to spend a hell of a lot more than a Model S on fashionable cars, with less pragmatic benefit. Just because the benefit is dependent on specific driving patterns doesn't invalidate it, it just limits the people who consider it practical at this time. No harm in that.

If, say, someone wants a Tesla because it'll cut their commute time in half, that's a thoroughly pragmatic benefit, it's completely practical. A person doing that has no obligation to burden themselves with spurious requirements created by people with different needs than themselves.

How can a car reduce commute time? Distance is distance.

Quote:

You don't get to come down from the mountain with a tablet that lists The Minimum Requirements For Practical Cars. It's completely dependent on the priorities of the person buying it.

Of course I do. I'm a consumer.

There is no advanatge to buying an overpriced electric vehicle that can't come close to existing car technology in utility. Like I said, an overpriced civic, or a high end BMW 3 series for cheaper? Tesla simply cannot compete, period. And it is not the role of the consumer to subsidise a new industry by overpaying for a worse product. The dumb thing isn't even environmentl friendly, considering most of our electricty comes from coal.

If Tesla knew what they were doing they'd be working on establishing charging standards, designing simple to impliment infrastructure, and putting charging stations in across the country. That's the only hope electric cars have of ever going mainstream.

Someone that doesn't care about the drawbacks that bother you due to different driving patterns won't be as put off by them. And they might stand to benefit in ways you don't, as in the above example. It's entirely possible for two people to make rational decisions that are different, but both correct.

Emkorial wrote:

The dumb thing isn't even environmentl friendly, considering most of our electricty comes from coal.

Power from coal still wins due to greater efficiencies; but most new electricity capacity is natural gas or better, so the margin of the win will increase over time.

Emkorial wrote:

If Tesla knew what they were doing...

They'd have their factory booked solid well into next year and be selling their technologies to major auto manufacturers.

You don't get to come down from the mountain with a tablet that lists The Minimum Requirements For Practical Cars.

The car buying public does, and they won't buy this in numbers large enough to make any real difference. Unless the infrastructure to support it is already in place.

Quote:

Just because the benefit is dependent on specific driving patterns doesn't invalidate it, it just limits the people who consider it practical at this time. No harm in that.

No, it doesn't invalidate it, and no, there's no harm in it. I've never claimed either was the case.

But the market you're speaking of is so ridicuously tiny that it'll never amount to anything. Even if we assume that 1% of the population of California "needs" to buy one, can afford to buy one and does, that still only amounts to about 1/1000 of the population of the United States (~330k vehicles), and THAT assumes every person in the US owns a car, which isn't the case by a long shot.

Again, electrics in general (and the Tesla in particular) won't make any real difference until there's sufficient infrastructure and technology to make them practical for the majority of the population.

^^^^I'll agree with Raptor; until we have some kind of either fast-charge or battery-swap infrastructure (like what Better Place is talking about) electrics will make a very tiny impact at best.

That said, I think electric is by far our best bet for massive cuts in automobile-originated pollution for the time being.

Emkorial wrote:

Quote:

- 160 mile range

You mean an 80 mile range. Unless you want to walk home.

That really depends on whether you can plug in at the end or not. My previous workplace had an entire row of parking spaces with plugs for electric vehicles; this will only become more common, at least in the urbanized areas where electric vehicles currently (heh) make sense.

Quote:

50 grand for a civic that you can drive for about an hour or so before you need to turn around or risk getting stranded. Or you could by a VERY nicely equipped BMW 3 series and walk out of the dealership with a couple grand in your pocket.

Only an idiot or a zealot would buy a Tesla.

I'd buy it. For trips longer than 160 miles from home I have another vehicle, but for a commuter car I think it's just about ideal. No more $50 tanks of gas sounds fine to me.

50 grand for a civic that you can drive for about an hour or so before you need to turn around or risk getting stranded. Or you could by a VERY nicely equipped BMW 3 series and walk out of the dealership with a couple grand in your pocket.

Only an idiot or a zealot would buy a Tesla.

How would your BMW do in a drag race against a Tesla? I'm not arguing that that's the right criterion, but it's one that some people will use. Your characterization of the Tesla as a "Civic" isn't correct. It's a luxury car, and it's much bigger than a Civic. It's also much bigger than a BMW 3. It's not been reviewed yet, so no one knows how it will perform in real life.

Emkorial wrote:

The dumb thing isn't even environmentl friendly, considering most of our electricty comes from coal.

Nationwide, EVs charged from the electricity grid produce lower global warming emissions than the average compact gasoline-powered vehicle (with a fuel economy of 27 miles per gallon)—even when the electricity is produced primarily from coal in regions with the “dirtiest” electricity grids.

In regions with the “cleanest” electricity grids [45% of the US, according to the UCS], EVs produce lower global warming emissions than even the most fuel-efficient hybrids.

That said, I think electric is by far our best bet for massive cuts in automobile-originated pollution for the time being.

Agreed.

Quote:

I'd buy it.

So would I, if money were no object (it is) and I had someplace to charge it (I don't - apartment), and I had a reasonable way to support multiple vehicles so I could have one around for "long range" trips (again, not practical).

Quote:

For trips longer than 160 miles from home I have another vehicle, but for a commuter car I think it's just about ideal.

Yep. It looks nice, has good performance on paper, and looks neat and fun. It'd suit my needs probably 90% of the time. But I'm not crazy enough to think it's remotely practical. Putting aside everything else it loses on cost alone. Sure, no more $50 fill-ups, but even at $5/gallon you'd never come out ahead of something like a conventional gas powered Civic - which has none of the operational or support limitations of the electric.

I think the Model S is a great thing, I'm glad to see it's out there and I'm looking forward to see where all of this goes in the next 15-20 years. But I don't expect the Model S to 'make a splash' anywhere but in the automotive press. Not until driving cross country in an electric is as simple as it is in a fossil fuel based car.

The car buying public does, and they won't buy this in numbers large enough to make any real difference. Unless the infrastructure to support it is already in place.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

The more likely scenario is:

-EV prices come down over time as the technology matures, and performance improves.-Infrastructure expands in major centers and then along major routes between major centers.-As prices come down and infrastructure expands, the people who stand to benefit, whose needs are covered, become more numerous and adoption increases accordingly.-Charging infrastructure expands as adoption increases.

Charging stations everywhere isn't the prerequisite for this, it's one of the last steps.

The actual prerequisite for real long term impact is for there to be enough of a business model now for profitable companies to keep improving the technology. And I don't expect people who don't want one to buy one. Which is why it's significant that there's enough people who stand to benefit already.

By your philosophy, trailing indicators like gradmothers on Facebook would be required for computers to have an impact. But that's backwards, that is a very very late stage after large impact has already accrued.

I hate it when people compare a car like this to a civic. Why not a geo metro? Heck, why buy new at all when you can get significant price savings by buying used off craigslist? Why even use a car? Why not ride a bike or walk?

This car looks like it has the build quality of a BMW. And many people who own BMW's still use "beater" cars to go to work.

So here's one thing I"m wondering. Let's say that you need to make an emergency recharge stop at a gas station.

I hate it when people compare a car like this to a civic. Why not a geo metro? Heck, why buy new at all when you can get significant price savings by buying used off craigslist? Why even use a car? Why not ride a bike or walk?

Mainly because it's well known, a relative standard for its class, and presumably if you're looking at electrics the cost of fuel is a significant consideration. When was the last time you saw a Geo Metro?

Something like a Civic tends to be solidly built, will comfortably satisfy the transportation needs of a wide range of the population, is fairly inexpensive to operate and maintain, exhibits average performance and handling qualities, and gets respectable mileage. In short, it's a good example of an "average car" and thus a reasonable benchmark, but pick anything you like. Hell, compare it to a Ferrari Enzo if you really want, but I don't think that'd have much relevance to the motoring public in general.

But a Civic has nowhere near the build quality or performance of an S (again; on paper, we've not seen it in person etc); it's a disingenuous comparison. People who are legitimately interested in the S are unlikely to be comparing it to a Civic, they'd be comparing it to whatever the large BMW sedan is called, or a Lexus or Audi sedan.

Which is smart, because I don't think you could build something like the S that's really comparable to a Civic for anywhere near Civic prices; there's a lot more room in BMW pricing to take margin off in order to pay for the technology that hasn't hit commodity pricing yet.

If they can get those lithium-air batteries (mentioned on the front page) working economically they would seem perfect for the next generation of these.

That aside, I've wanted an S since the first time I heard about them. I'd really really love to see one in person (I've seen two Roadsters, one stationary in Daytona FL and one passing me on the highway here); the site says they seat 6, which seems incredible for a sedan.

There must have been a reason why Toyota stayed with NIMH for so long.

I hate it when people compare a car like this to a civic. Why not a geo metro? Heck, why buy new at all when you can get significant price savings by buying used off craigslist? Why even use a car? Why not ride a bike or walk?

Mainly because it's well known, a relative standard for its class, and presumably if you're looking at electrics the cost of fuel is a significant consideration. When was the last time you saw a Geo Metro?

Something like a Civic tends to be solidly built, will comfortably satisfy the transportation needs of a wide range of the population, is fairly inexpensive to operate and maintain, exhibits average performance and handling qualities, and gets respectable mileage. In short, it's a good example of an "average car" and thus a reasonable benchmark, but pick anything you like. Hell, compare it to a Ferrari Enzo if you really want, but I don't think that'd have much relevance to the motoring public in general.

There's no reason to get a Mercedes Benz or BMW over a civic either. Except as status symbols + whatever minor tech stylings and improvements they bring over a civic, though probably not 50k worth.

This is the first sedan silhouette in a long time that has been appealing.

If they can get those lithium-air batteries (mentioned on the front page) working economically they would seem perfect for the next generation of these.

That aside, I've wanted an S since the first time I heard about them. I'd really really love to see one in person (I've seen two Roadsters, one stationary in Daytona FL and one passing me on the highway here); the site says they seat 6, which seems incredible for a sedan.

There must have been a reason why Toyota stayed with NIMH for so long.

The car buying public does, and they won't buy this in numbers large enough to make any real difference. Unless the infrastructure to support it is already in place.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

The more likely scenario is:

-EV prices come down over time as the technology matures, and performance improves.

Banking on some major breakthrough happening is not really a winning strategy. look back through history; advances in energy storage and control systems have largely been balanced out by the need to make cars safer (which tends to add weight.) The Gen II GM EV1 got about 80-100 miles per charge. Fast forward to 2012, where we have the Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus Electric, and Honda Fit EV, which get about...

80-100 miles per charge.

Quote:

-Infrastructure expands in major centers and then along major routes between major centers.-As prices come down and infrastructure expands, the people who stand to benefit, whose needs are covered, become more numerous and adoption increases accordingly.-Charging infrastructure expands as adoption increases.

Charging stations everywhere isn't the prerequisite for this, it's one of the last steps.

you have to overcome something of a chicken-and-egg situation here.

Quote:

The actual prerequisite for real long term impact is for there to be enough of a business model now for profitable companies to keep improving the technology.

Tesla has yet to be profitable.

Megalodon wrote:

There's this prevailing attitude towards electric cars that there's some sort of onus on them to do everything, everywhere that gas cars do, and I don't see where that comes from.

well, what do you expect when we have garbage like Who Killed the Electric Car telling us how evil we are because we aren't driving electric cars?

That's where ultracapacitors come in. They would solve the recharge time problem.

This is obviously not a mass market car, but is a competitor to like BMW, Lexus, Cadillac, Lincoln, and Mercedes Benz.

I'd readily pick this car over any of those cars.

One thing I think I should qualify is that I'd love to drive one of these; the acceleration, responsiveness and reduced noise is supposed to be a very different driving experience, and I've no ideological objection to these kinds of vehicles.

But they're just not very practical; way less practical or useful than any other non-electric vehicle in the same price bracket. These cars have a substantial drawback - you can drive them 80 miles somewhere and 80 miles back, or you can drive them 160 miles somewhere, recharge them for several hours, and continue on your way. With a conventionally fuelled vehicle, you can pretty much drive them wherever you want because you can refuel them nearly anywhere, and do so in less than 5 minutes.

This Tesla : it's great if you only ever commute less than 80 miles to work. Or screw around town on short trips on a daily basis. And since part of the usefulness of a car is that if you really need it to, it can take you nearly as far as there are roads to drive on, these Teslas have substantially reduced simple practicality for a really substantial cost. The "really nice" BMW Emkorial mentioned, for equivalent cost, is still a far more useful and practical vehicle to own by comparison.

My father currently drives a Mazda2. He's got no real need to make long distance drives, but a couple of months ago when I relocated for a job, my parents put stuff in the car and used it to drive 220 miles to where I now live. You couldn't do that with that Tesla unless you turned it into at least 2 days worth of travelling time.

The practical electric cars need infrastructure complete with 'changing the battery' model of recharging. Or filling up with molten lithium or molten sodium (the molten sodium may seem like a very dangerous thing but the gasoline still has plenty of edge over it).

-Apparently they used laptop batteries for this thing. Can lithium ion handle the demands of a car?

- What are the dangers of a crash, when lithium ion batteries, which have a reputation for catching fire and exploding, are involved?

There are a few different Lithium-? battery technologies, one of which is LiFEPO4, which is very stable and a lot less likely to catch fire and/or explode than conventional Li-ion. The voltage is also slightly different and they have a lower capacity in the same volume as li-ion, although that has improved somewhat recently.

A123 batteries are also LiFEPO4, and are used in many cordless power tools, which have very high current demands. I don't see a reason Li-ion can't deliver here, given an appropriately-specced battery pack.

Aside: I also see that the Model S's wikipedia page has something about a removeable battery pack. Did that make it into the production model, or is that something from the prototyping stage?